Partly allowed

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Karnataka HC27 Nov 2024MFA/1690/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurer appealed against motor accident compensation for the death of a married man, challenging notional income of Rs.12,000 per month and 1/3rd personal expense deduction. The court upheld both but reduced interest from 7.5% to 6% per annum and partly allowed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs.20,46,000 upheld; interest modified from 7.5% to 6% per annum; insurer directed to deposit within two months.

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48698 MFA No. 1690 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA MFA NO. 1690 OF 2019 (MV-D)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.30, 3^RD FLOOR, JNR CITY CENTER RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 027 REPRESENTED BY MANAGER

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI., ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. LAKSHMANA GOWDA S/O LATE BORAIAH

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶14

SMT NEELAMMA W/O LAKSHMANA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶15

ALL ARE R/AT MUTHUGADAHALLI MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT

¶16

M/S VOLER CAR PVT.,LTD. NO.3730/A-2, 1^ST FLOOR RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:48698 MFA No. 1690 of 2019

¶19

SUBRAMANYA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 021 REP. BY ITS MANAGER

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M V MAHESWARAPPA., ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. S. B. SRIKANTH, ADV. FOR R3)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12/12/2018, PASSED IN MVC NO.359/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE XIX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-17), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.20,46,000/WITH INTEREST @ 7.5% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

The insurer is in appeal challenging the award of Rs.20,46,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of

¶27

Boregowda, aged 40 years old.

¶28

This is a case in which as a result of the accident occurred on 19.10.2017, not only Boregowda was killed, his wife, son and daughter were all killed in the motor vehicle accident. The insurer has filed this appeal only in respect of the sums awarded by the Tribunal as compensation for the death of Boregowda, to his parents.

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48698 MFA No. 1690 of 2019

¶30

It is not in dispute that the Insurer is liable to pay

¶31

the compensation as the offending vehicle was insured.

¶32

The Tribunal, on assessment of the evidence adduced before it, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was responsible for the accident which has resulted in the death of Boregowda. The Tribunal has thereafter proceeded to award the following sums as compensation:

¶33

Sl. No.	Particulars	Amount in (Rs.)
1.	Loss of Dependency	20,16,000
2.	Loss of estate and Funeral expenses & Transportation charges	30,000
	Total	20,46,000

¶34

The Tribunal while arriving at the compensation of Rs.20,46,000/- has taken the montly income of the deceased as Rs.12,000/-.

¶35

It is the case of the insurer that there was no proof to come to the conclusion that Boregowda was earning

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48698 MFA No. 1690 of 2019

¶37

Rs.12,000/- per month and the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that the assertion of the claimant that he was earning Rs.1,800/- per day, could not have been accepted and ought not to have determined Rs.12,000/as his income. It is to be stated here that in respect of cases where there is no actual proof of income, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has fixed Rs.11,000/- as notional monthly income for the victims of the motor vehicle accident of the year 2017.

¶38

In my view, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its discretion and coming to the conclusion that Boregowda was earning Rs.12,000/- per month given the fact that he had agricultural land and was residing in Bengaluru.

¶39

The second argument advanced by the insurer is that deduction of 1/3^rd of the income towards personal expenses by the Tribunal was incorrect and deduction ought to have been made at 50%, since the claim was by the parents of the deceased. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48698 MFA No. 1690 of 2019

¶41

case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation,

¶42

AIR 2009 SC 3104.

¶43

It is to be noticed here that deduction of 50% towards personal expenses of the deceased would be applicable only when the deceased was a bachelor. In fact, the reliance placed on the judgment in Sarla

¶44

Verma’s case, also relates to a case where the Apex Court had observed that where the claimants were the parents and deceased was a bachelor, the deduction should be 50%.

¶45

In the instant case, admittedly, the deceased was a married person and had two kids. Therefore, deduction can only be of 1/3^rd of the notional income for the purpose of computing the compensation.

¶46

In my view, therefore, the assessment of the compensation and awarding of Rs.20,46,000/- by the Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be found fault with.

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48698 MFA No. 1690 of 2019

¶48

However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at

¶49

7.5% per annum is on the higher side. To this extent, the judgment and award of the Tribunal is modified and it is held that the claimant would be entitled for interest at 6%

¶50

per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

¶51

The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation awarded within two months from

¶52

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶53

The disbursement of the compensation amount shall

¶54

be in terms of the award of the Tribunal.

¶55

The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to

¶56

the Tribunal for disbursement.

¶57

This appeal is accordingly allowed in part .

¶58

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

¶60

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Chikkennamma

Divisional Controller Vs Rangaiaha

Sri Narasimhamurthy a T Vs Smt Prathiba H

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Cholamanadalam Ms General Company Ltd.

Rathnakar Vs Raghavendra Prasad

Geetha Manekar Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.